1927 Yankees team ball forgery

[David Atkatz]

I have always been one to admit my mistakes. (I learned as a physics professor that a mistake is a "teachable moment.") One of the centerpieces of my vintage Yankee collection is, indeed, a forgery--one that fooled me, and James Spence as well. It sure is nice work, though. (Maybe I'll consign it to Coach's. ;) )

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/datkatz/1927yankeesball.jpg

[batsballsbases]

Hi David,
How did you finally come to that conclusion on the ball?

[JeremyW]

Sorry for your loss. This is frightening... to say the least. If you don't mind me asking, what clinched it for you?

[Ease]

Sorry for your loss.

+1. That sucks.

[David Atkatz]

Jeremy, Al, I was quite worried after seeing some photos that Chris posted. (I don't find all his posts useless! ;) ) The ball he pictured was obviously a forgery, but there were signatures on that ball that certainly seemed very, very like signatures on mine. After a long time rationalizing--trying to convince myself that the differences I could find showed my ball was not done by the same hand, I bit the bullet and spoke with one who's knowledge and skills I consider to be second-to-none. He confirmed my fears.

[JeremyW]

I respect your honesty David. Unfortunately, many would have consigned the ball to the next major auction house's auction & walked away.

[GKreindler]

I'm really sorry to hear that, David. :(

[David Atkatz]

I respect your honesty David. Unfortunately, many would have consigned the ball to the next major auction house's auction & walked away.The thought did cross my mind!

[JeremyW]

It would have crossed my mind also. I guess that's what separates the good guys from the bad guys.

[carrigansghost]

Admire your honesty and feel for your loss.

Rawn

[Leon]

Sorry to hear that David. It really sucks. You are a good man for not pawning it off. I try to live by "Karma" and yours is very good from that situation. All the best...

[barrysloate]

Can you get your money back David, or has it far passed that point? That is a very expensive baseball.

[David Atkatz]

I'm probably stuck, Barry. The ball was purchased from Superior Auctions in 2000. I don't think they're still in business.

Maybe I'll sue Spence. :D

[batsballsbases]

David,
Very sorry to hear that about the ball. My heart goes out to you as a fellow collector of yankees items. But as I have always said this is the reason why I stopped collecting anything autographed many years ago. Letters ,COAs, it doesnt really matter what you have but like I said unless you were there and it was signed in front of you there is NO expert that can say with 100% certainty its real. And like I said my heart goes out to you because its an expensive lesson to learn. You as a collector / expert were even fooled so what chance does a novice to advanced collector with extra $ stand? I think if every member on net 54 kicked in 10 dollars we could help you out of your problem! I will be the first to kick in my friend! Al

[David Atkatz]

Thanks for the offer, Al! :)

It is an expensive lesson, but that's life. As Tony Soprano would say, "Whadda ya gonna do?"

[slidekellyslide]

David, was it Regency Superior auctions? If so, they are still in business...I get catalogs for all their auctions (4 or 5 per year)...just got a catalog a month or so back.

[ibuysportsephemera]

David,
Very sorry to hear that about the ball. My heart goes out to you as a fellow collector of yankees items. But as I have always said this is the reason why I stopped collecting anything autographed many years ago. Letters ,COAs, it doesnt really matter what you have but like I said unless you were there and it was signed in front of you there is NO expert that can say with 100% certainty its real. And like I said my heart goes out to you because its an expensive lesson to learn. You as a collector / expert were even fooled so what chance does a novice to advanced collector with extra $ stand? I think if every member on net 54 kicked in 10 dollars we could help you out of your problem! I will be the first to kick in my friend! Al

Sorry David....

Although I agree 1,000,000% with Al's quote (which I bolded).

Jeff

[David Atkatz]

David, was it Regency Superior auctions? If so, they are still in business...I get catalogs for all their auctions (4 or 5 per year)...just got a catalog a month or so back.No, Dan. It was Superior Sportscards.

[HexsHeroes]

.

. . . that was owned by Greg Bussineau, lately of Legacy Sports Rarities / Greg Bussineau Sports Rarities?

[travrosty]

it's a spence ball. :(

[earlywynnfan]

That really stinks. I'd love to know the person whose opinion you value so highly; is it perhaps a dealer we are familiar with? I know that's where I'd go with an item like this.

I've always desired a ball signed by Ruth, Wagner, or Johnson, but for me to spend so much, I'd want much more assurance than JSA or PSA can offer (and I am not trying to bash them in this instance.) This is why I go after obscure guys in my niche. With such a large collection, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if I have a bad one or two. But if I've fallen for a fake Bennie Huffman signed ball, well, I'm out 30 bucks.

I give you props for eating the ball instead of trying to recoup the money.

Ken

[David Atkatz]

I'd love to know the person whose opinion you value so highly...
Ken

It's our very own Jodi Birkholm.

[batsballsbases]

David,
I hate to say it but I would value that opinion also.

[MVSNYC]

man, sorry david! :(

that is scary, i have seen you post images of that ball in the past, i would've sworn it was legit, those sigs look great. so what do you (or spence) claim happened? was this a blank vintage ball and one person forged all the sigs? or did it originally have a few legit ones on it, then the others were faked later?

[mark evans]

I share the above views, especialy those commending David for not attempting to sell the ball -- a 'mensch' as my grandmother would say.

I also agree with Al's comment: if an expert of David's skill and experience can be fooled, what chance do we novice collectors have?

Finally, although not my business, I hope David and Richard can bury the hatchet. Although I've never met either in person, both seem to be good and honest folks and assets to the hobby.

Mark

[batsballsbases]

Hi Mark,
I also wish that Richard and David can put an end to this. I have known Richard for 20+years from the White Plains shows and always found his knowledge of autographs to be first rate. Even thou he is one of the last 5 Met Fans left we must forgive him.:D I also have talked to David several times on the phone and find his knowledge of yankee items to be vast. Better to use your knowledge in a constructive way on the net54 that look like two children in a pissing contest where the last one standing wins! Do you know what I mean Boys!;);) And David my friend Tony Soprano "wooda pulled out the gun and done some shootin" if you know what I mean.:eek::eek:

[thekingofclout]

It's our very own Jodi Birkholm.

David,
I hate to say it but I would value that opinion also.

Agreed. Jodi is absolutely one of the finest in the business. An honest and humble man that I respect and admire.

[RichardSimon]

Mark,
Thanks for the kind words but I want to reply to the statements from a couple of people on this thread who are wondering how they can continue to collect when something like this baseball incident can fool some experienced people.
There are good dealers in this hobby. Those that are knowledgable about what they do. Of course not one of them can claim that they have never been fooled but if you can confine your purchasing to the "good guys" the chances are you can build a good collection which will be as close to 100% authentic as can be.
The good dealers that I know, and they don't use TPA, include Jim Stinson, Bill Corcoran, Ron Gordon, Rich Albersheim, Danny Cariseo, Jodi Birkholm and Kevin Keating. Phil Marx uses TPA and he is trustworthy also. These are knowledgable people and will always guarantee their material. I am glad to say that they are friends of mine too.
As far as auction houses go I have known the people at Lelands for a long time. I feel that they are the most knowledgable auction house people in the hobby when it comes to autographs. They are the only major auction house that I am aware of that does not need to use TPA.
Good luck.

[RichardSimon]

Hi Mark,
I also wish that Richard and David can put an end to this. I have known Richard for 20+years from the White Plains shows and always found his knowledge of autographs to be first rate. Even thou he is one of the last 5 Met Fans left we must forgive him.:D I also have talked to David several times on the phone and find his knowledge of yankee items to be vast. Better to use your knowledge in a constructive way on the net54 that look like two children in a pissing contest where the last one standing wins! Do you know what I mean Boys!;);) And David my friend Tony Soprano "wooda pulled out the gun and done some shootin" if you know what I mean.:eek::eek:

Thanks for the sympathy Al. I am considering my own personal boycott of New Shea (I don't like to call it the name that it is now using) this year since the main reason to watch the Mets this past year is now wearing a Miami uniform :mad::mad::(:(.

[batsballsbases]

Thanks for the sympathy Al. I am considering my own personal boycott of New Shea (I don't like to call it the name that it is now using) this year since the main reason to watch the Mets this past year is now wearing a Miami uniform :mad::mad::(:(.

And remember the main reason why ! Can you say Bernie M:eek: "I think thats gonna leave a bruise"

[mr2686]

I feel your pain Richard...the only reason to watch the Padres last year is now wearing a Miami uniform too!

[RichardSimon]

I feel your pain Richard...the only reason to watch the Padres last year is now wearing a Miami uniform too!

Wade LeBlanc ??? :):).

[Fuddjcal]

after that revelation, I take back the off the cuff remarks that you "choke on your Yankee stuff". I am sorry that this happened to you. THIS IS SICKENING.....from a treasure to a trash can.

I admire you for coming on here and telling us this, that even a seasoned collector can be duped. What the hell is this world coming to? No wonder you have a bug up your a** for the alphabet guys. This system is badly broken and it needs to be fixed. I wonder how many others are at their wits end like I am?

[David Atkatz]

Thanks, Chuck. I appreciate that.
And thanks to all you guys for the kind words.

There are far, far, more important things in life than a signed baseball. This really ain't that bad.

Thanks again.

[Forever Young]

after that revelation, I take back the off the cuff remarks that you "choke on your Yankee stuff". I am sorry that this happened to you. THIS IS SICKENING.....from a treasure to a trash can.

I admire you for coming on here and telling us this, that even a seasoned collector can be duped. What the hell is this world coming to? No wonder you have a bug up your a** for the alphabet guys. This system is badly broken and it needs to be fixed. I wonder how many others are at their wits end like I am?

I agreed 100%! David, you did what most would not do. You left yourself open to many "I told you so's" and bit the bullet when most would "pay it forward". I am guessing that there were some smiles after your post, unfortunately. I base this on reading some past posts on NET54.

It really is discouraging as NO authenticator is 100% reliable including ones on this board. I base this on past posts/findings as well. We have all seen examples where most “experts” have failed. It just goes to show that one must buy from good people and not by the certs. I know that the 27 ball fooled both you and JSA (AT THE TIME) but it is just too bad you have no recourse.

Again, very sorry David. I know most people on here feel really bad for you. I commend you for making this public.

[MVSNYC]

david (or anyone)- could you answer my question from earlier?...just want to be educated on this subject.

"so what do you (or spence) claim happened? was this a blank vintage ball and one person forged all the sigs? or did it originally have a few legit ones on it, then the others were faked later?"

[thetruthisoutthere]

man, sorry david! :(

that is scary, i have seen you post images of that ball in the past, i would've sworn it was legit, those sigs look great. so what do you (or spence) claim happened? was this a blank vintage ball and one person forged all the sigs? or did it originally have a few legit ones on it, then the others were faked later?

Based on what I have learned, a ball like this in the hands of a young skilled forger would have started out on a blank ball. The person who did this was skilled enough to fool many people. It is possible he is still operating now.

[barrysloate]

I've got to say guys, and I will take some flack for this, but collecting autographs is one f**king miserable hobby. Every collecting field has to deal with some level of fraud- coins are cleaned, stamps are reperforated, baseball cards are trimmed- but the fraud in the autograph hobby is so off the charts I don't know how people can really enjoy it. And the idea that an autograph collector needs to educate himself may be somewhat true, but take David A., who has been studying Yankee memorabilia for decades. He certainly is at the top of the learning curve, yet look at this stinking mess. I have to think a 27 Yankee ball in that condition is worth well north of 50K, and his example is now worth exactly zero. Hobbies are supposed to be relaxing endeavors; I would need a regular supply of Xanax to deal with this shit. This is going to drive so many collectors out of autographs and will have a significant impact on its future. If somebody asked me the best way to get started in autograph collecting, I would tell him to collect hummels instead.

[scmavl]

Wow David, that is a real disappointment. Sorry that happened to you. I think I have a Rick Honeycutt signed ball if you want me to send it to you as a replacement... ;)

[perezfan]

David:

As the others stated, it is very commendable that you posted this. It was the difficult, but right thing to do, and many thanks (from all of us collectors) for taking the high road!

I am also hoping that this thread can address a little about the forgery itself...

Whle the sigs on the ball all appear very convincing, I am sure it must have been the unique style of this specific forger that gave it away. It's far easier to analyze "after the fact"... but in retrospect, it is interesting that the forger made two of the same basic mistakes that so many seem to...

1. The ink type, color, consistency and pressure doesn't vary at all from signature to signature. It is perfectly consistent throughout.

2. The signatures barely touch each other (if at all). Normally, there is some inevitable overlap, regardless of how much care is taken in signing.

This makes for a beautiful and aesthetically pleasing ball... but how many authentic team-signed balls really look this perfect? I know it's easier to look back and notice these things "after the fact", and that many/most of us would have been fooled by this one (including Spence). I just found it interesting that the even a forgery of this magnitude failed to "side-step" those tell-tale signs.

[cubsguy1969]

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Barry. I don't really collect autographs but I've always had in the back of my mind that it would be really cool to some day own a signed Ruth ball. But with fraud like this so rampant, and only a select few being able to recognize bad examples, it wouldn't be worth the stress of never knowing if I truly had the real thing. It would suck the enjoyment out of ownership of such a treasure. To me, the allure of collecting an autograph is: "Wow, that was written by the legendary Babe Ruth. He held that ball in his hand 80 years ago and handed it to some lucky kid." Instead, I would imagine some unwashed a-hole in a seedy apartment hunched over a ball doing his dirty work. Very sad.

So sorry this happened, David.

Rob

[thetruthisoutthere]

David:

As the others stated, it is very commendable that you posted this. It was the difficult, but right thing to do, and many thanks (from all of us collectors) for taking the high road!

I am also hoping that this thread can address a little about the forgery itself...

Whle the sigs on the ball all appear very convincing, I am sure it must have been the unique style of this specific forger that gave it away. It's far easier to analyze "after the fact"... but in retrospect, it is interesting that the forger made two of the same basic mistakes that so many seem to...

1. The ink type, color, consistency and pressure doesn't vary at all from signature to signature. It is perfectly consistent throughout.

2. The signatures barely touch each other (if at all). Normally, there is some inevitable overlap, regardless of how much care is taken in signing.

This makes for a beautiful and aesthetically pleasing ball... but how many authentic team-signed balls really look this perfect? I know it's easier to look back and notice these things "after the fact", and that many/most of us would have been fooled by this one (including Spence). I just found it interesting that the even a forgery of this magnitude failed to "side-step" those tell-tale signs.

The young-skilled forger (who still may be around) who did that ball was also skilled at producing vintage New York Giants team-signed baseballs. Back in the day, he fooled many people.

[RichardSimon]

The young-skilled forger (who still may be around) who did that ball was also skilled at producing vintage New York Giants team-signed baseballs. Back in the day, he fooled many people.

He also fooled Charlie Sheen in a classic con of forged baseballs.
SS balls of Black Sox were inscribed To Charlie and were allegedly given to Charlie Riegler who was one of the umps during the 1919 Series.
From what I was told, Sheen gobbled them up.
Though he was conned I thought he was pretty good in Eight Men Out :).
This story is only hearsay but I believe it is true.
And I did see a 1920's NY Giants "team signed" ball at a show, offered to me by the partner of the forger.

[David Atkatz]

The forger did, however, replicate aspects of early team balls that many do not notice. On many such balls, the players did not sign over the manufacturer's stamps; that was done here. Also, note the panel with the league president's signature stamp. The player signatures align with the stamp, rather than the usual "ladder" alignment, with the signatures forming the rungs of a ladder, and the seams being the sides. This, too, was often done on early team balls.

The forger wasn't "greedy." (Ironic way of phrasing it.) Had he chosen to sign over the stampings, there would have been plenty of room to include more signatures--a Giard, for example--and thus increase the ball's value.

[Forever Young]

Barry,

I agree with you on most of this. In the past year, I have decided to only buy/collect autographs on the following items:

1. Stamped GPCs
2. Letters
3. Checks
4. Contracts
5. Receipts

And even then, I make sure I am comfortable.

Ben

I've got to say guys, and I will take some flack for this, but collecting autographs is one f**king miserable hobby. Every collecting field has to deal with some level of fraud- coins are cleaned, stamps are reperforated, baseball cards are trimmed- but the fraud in the autograph hobby is so off the charts I don't know how people can really enjoy it. And the idea that an autograph collector needs to educate himself may be somewhat true, but take David A., who has been studying Yankee memorabilia for decades. He certainly is at the top of the learning curve, yet look at this stinking mess. I have to think a 27 Yankee ball in that condition is worth well north of 50K, and his example is now worth exactly zero. Hobbies are supposed to be relaxing endeavors; I would need a regular supply of Xanax to deal with this shit. This is going to drive so many collectors out of autographs and will have a significant impact on its future. If somebody asked me the best way to get started in autograph collecting, I would tell him to collect hummels instead.

[chaddurbin]

i'm sickened by the news. again thx to david for being stand-up and notifying the board instead of trying to peddle the ball off behind the JSA cert.

[mschwade]

And I did see a 1920's NY Giants "team signed" ball at a show, offered to me by the partner of the forger.

Is his partner still active in the hobby?

[thetruthisoutthere]

Also, the young-skilled forger primarily forged vintage baseballs.

[David Atkatz]

Richard just said above that he forged single-signed balls, as well.

[RichardSimon]

Is his partner still active in the hobby?

yes he is.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Richard just said above that he forged single-signed balls, as well.

I corrected my typo, David. Thank you.

[mschwade]

yes he is.

That's very disturbing news. Is this a well known dealer?

[RichardSimon]

I would not call him well known but he is known to some.

[mschwade]

I would not call him well known but he is known to some.

Thanks, I know you are walking a thin line with what you can and cannot share. Appreciate you answering my questions.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Thanks, I know you are walking a thin line with what you can and cannot share. Appreciate you answering my questions.

You know what they say "It's not what you know, it's what you can prove."

[Frozen in Time]

You know what they say "It's not what you know, it's what you can prove."

David - I share the feelings of all those who have posted, saddened by your loss and uplifted by your honesty. As a scientist, do you feel that the "proof" of a forgery is just as difficult as the "proof" of authenticity? If so, where does that leave us?

[David Atkatz]

David - I share the feelings of all those who have posted, saddened by your loss and uplifted by your honesty. As a scientist, do you feel that the "proof" of a forgery is just as difficult as the "proof" of authenticity? If so, where does that leave us?Thanks, Craig.
There are many ways to "prove" a forgery--impossible-for-the-time materials, the signor not being physically able to have signed at the date and place indicated by the piece (letter, postcard, etc.), lousy execution...
I think it's impossible, though, to prove authenticity. If you didn't see the item being signed--and with the vintage pieces many of us collect that, of course is not possible--the best you can do is not find any evidence of fraud. A strong provenance goes a long way, too. At the end of the day, though, all you can say is "I believe, with some high level of confidence" that the piece is genuine. How high that level must be--and what it takes to produce that level--varies with the individual collector.

[yanks12025]

David,
What will you do with the ball now?

[Rickyy]

:( I'm also very sorry to read this...kudos to David and all of the others who are willing to share their knowledge, expertise and expose those who continue to deceive people in this hobby that we all share in and love.

Ricky Y

[murphusa]

If I go to purchased a house and it needed a soil test for the spectic tank etc and a company gave me a certificate that said "in their opinion based on such and such" that the soil was ok and then I buy the house but find out 10 years latter that their results were not up to standards and that was the reason for illness etc.

Wouldn't I be able to go to court, Why not here

I based my decession on a report that everything was OK, now I find out they are not

[steve B]

Sorry to hear about the ball David, That's got to make for a rough day.

I'm hoping you save it as an object to study, comparisons might help someone else later on. Tough call though as it's a dangerous forgery.

Steve B

[steve B]

If I go to purchased a house and it needed a soil test for the spectic tank etc and a company gave me a certificate that said "in their opinion based on such and such" that the soil was ok and then I buy the house but find out 10 years latter that their results were not up to standards and that was the reason for illness etc.

Wouldn't I be able to go to court, Why not here

I based my decession on a report that everything was OK, now I find out they are not

Because the soil test will be detailed. Not an opinion.

Here's what we tested for, and what we found at what level and how that compares to what the law allows.

If the testing was done wrong, yes you can pursue it.
If the allowable levels changed and are a problem now when they weren't 10 years ago....Maybe, but I doubt it would work.

If they say "we dug a hole and the dirt looks ok" that's just an opinion and is closer to a COA that the actual soil test.
The technology is available now to know a load of stuff about a signed item, but it's not quite cheap enough yet.


Steve B

[Caseyatbat]

David, you mentioned earlier in the thread this was a Spence ball. Was this ball fully authenticated with a full letter from JSA or PSA when Spence was with them? Or did it just come with an auction letter of authenticity or possibly only a verbal opinion?

[David Atkatz]

It was a James Spence letter from 1999, when he was on his own before PSA.

[Caseyatbat]

have you submitted it to be re-authenticated by PSA or JSA since you have owned it? Or possibly asked James Spence if he would stand behind his previous opinion and give this ball a new letter?

I am not saying I believe it would pass. There are several red flags that have already been pointed out in this thread. I just have never seen anybody give up on such a valuable item so quickly that was already authenticated by a top TPA just because of the opinion of 1 or 2 people.

[David Atkatz]

Don't worry, Casey--I haven't thrown it away. I'll probably show it to Jimmy, but it doesn't matter much to me what he says. As I said before, I saw some obviously forged work by this guy, and there was enough in common with my ball for me to seriously, seriously doubt it, myself. Jodi confirmed for me what I basically already knew, but wasn't willing to accept.

[Bilko G]

You are a really stand up guy David for not putting this ball back into an auction and i am really sorry this happened to you.

[travrosty]

have you submitted it to be re-authenticated by PSA or JSA since you have owned it? Or possibly asked James Spence if he would stand behind his previous opinion and give this ball a new letter?

I am not saying I believe it would pass. There are several red flags that have already been pointed out in this thread. I just have never seen anybody give up on such a valuable item so quickly that was already authenticated by a top TPA just because of the opinion of 1 or 2 people.




Isn't Spence 1 person?

[Bilko G]

Isn't Spence 1 person?


Yes Spence is one person, but his company (of the same name) employs several different authenticators.

[Lordstan]

David,
I am very sorry to hear about this. It was such a magnificent item. Wow.
We all get fooled sometime.

I also give you a lot of credit for posting about it.

I hope you are able to find a way to be compensated, either through the owners of the auction house, even if it isn't in business, or though Spence. They get paid a lot of money. I think they should stand behind it. Just my 2c.

Best,
Mark

[travrosty]

Yes Spence is one person, but his company (of the same name) employs several different authenticators.




Not at the time this ball was bought. in 1999. He said it was just spence.

He said Birkholm thought it was no good, and Birkholm worked for JSA. So does JSA think it is good or not? And would it have passed when Birkholm worked there? And would it pass now? Would Spence stick with his original authentication on this ball, or bail on it?

[Bilko G]

Not at the time this ball was bought. in 1999. He said it was just spence.



ahhh ok sorry about that, i thought you were talking present time.

[thetruthisoutthere]

have you submitted it to be re-authenticated by PSA or JSA since you have owned it? Or possibly asked James Spence if he would stand behind his previous opinion and give this ball a new letter?

I am not saying I believe it would pass. There are several red flags that have already been pointed out in this thread. I just have never seen anybody give up on such a valuable item so quickly that was already authenticated by a top TPA just because of the opinion of 1 or 2 people.

I guarantee that ball would not pass PSA today.

As a matter of fact, it wouldn't have passed PSA five years ago.

[novakjr]

Why does it matter if it would pass today, or if it could be snuck by someone? David's being quite honorable with this one. He knows it's not authentic, so trying to get it to pass JSA is not what he's trying to do.. Getting something you know is not authentic to pass, does not make it any more authentic..

David, I admire what you're doing here, and I sincerely hope you're able to manage a way to get some sort of reimbursement.

[Mr. Zipper]

Why does it matter if it would pass today, or if it could be snuck by someone?

I think the point Chris was making was that the TPAs have since become aware of this forger's work and what once fooled them would no longer do so.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Why does it matter if it would pass today, or if it could be snuck by someone? David's being quite honorable with this one. He knows it's not authentic, so trying to get it to pass JSA is not what he's trying to do.. Getting something you know is not authentic to pass, does not make it any more authentic..

David, I admire what you're doing here, and I sincerely hope you're able to manage a way to get some sort of reimbursement.

David, I was replying to a comment from "CaseyAtBat."

[thetruthisoutthere]

I think the point Chris was making was that the TPAs have since become aware of this forger's work and what once fooled them would no longer do so.

That, too. Thank you, Steve. Those of us who study autographs, learn something new every day. Unfortunately mistakes are made. It's not like some so-called authenticators who give blanket-authentication to EVERYTHING that crosses their desk (that's if they actually examine the autographs).

[novakjr]

I think the point Chris was making was that the TPAs have since become aware of this forger's work and what once fooled them would no longer do so.

That wasn't in reference to Chris. It was in reference to those asking if it would pass today.. It's almost comes off like they're trying to encourage him to sneak it past and then pass it off to someone else..

[novakjr]

David, I was replying to a comment from "CaseyAtBat."

so was I. I probably should've quoted him first. Sorry for the confusion.

[thetruthisoutthere]

so was I. I probably should've quoted him first. Sorry for the confusion.

No problem, David.

[tinkereversandme]

I started collecting autographs a few years ago and have come to this board to be educated and it seems when I ask a question on here or comment about something, it is always met by David in a snarky and sarcastic fashion, so I guess this is kind of vindication that a person who knows all can make a mistake. I also don't understand why it was said that there is no way JSA would pass it now. Why not? It seems like their opinion clashes often on items that others find "highly suspect" all the time and it doesn't stop the bidding it seems. I hope you do go to Jimmy and report what he says.

Regards,

Larry

[RichardSimon]

Halls of Shame was kind enough to send me some pictures of autographs, which I believe were probably done by the person that I have discussed here. A Black Sox team ball and a "To Charlie" ball from the famous con.

[RichardSimon]

I started collecting autographs a few years ago and have come to this board to be educated and it seems when I ask a question on here or comment about something, it is always met by David in a snarky and sarcastic fashion, so I guess this is kind of vindication that a person who knows all can make a mistake. I also don't understand why it was said that there is no way JSA would pass it now. Why not? It seems like their opinion clashes often on items that others find "highly suspect" all the time and it doesn't stop the bidding it seems. I hope you do go to Jimmy and report what he says.

Regards,

Larry


It was stated that no way would PSA pass the ball now. I believe that the authenticators in the hobby have become more aware of a ball like this now.
I too believe PSA would not pass the ball now.

[mr2686]

First off, I'm not trying to be a smart-ass with the following, but am really curious to what other's think. What I'm wondering is this - On this thread I've read that the ball would not pass now because 3rd party authenticators have become aware and have learned from their previous mistake. On past threads over the last few months, 3rd party authenticators have been bashed for making constant stupid mistakes, obviously unable or unwilling to learn. So what do we think:
1. TPA's are pretty good but make mistakes like everyone else?
2. TPA's have become too big and too busy to give each individual item their due?
3. TPA's are becoming Morales types and blanket authenticating?
4. Are TPA's leaning more and more to passing items that they should be
giving "no opinion" to?

Any thoughts?

[David Atkatz]

First off, I'm not trying to be a smart-ass with the following, but am really curious to what other's think. What I'm wondering is this - On this thread I've read that the ball would not pass now because 3rd party authenticators have become aware and have learned from their previous mistake. On past threads over the last few months, 3rd party authenticators have been bashed for making constant stupid mistakes, obviously unable or unwilling to learn. So what do we think:
1. TPA's are pretty good but make mistakes like everyone else?
2. TPA's have become too big and too busy to give each individual item their due?
3. TPA's are becoming Morales types and blanket authenticating?
4. Are TPA's leaning more and more to passing items that they should be
giving "no opinion" to?

Any thoughts?1, 2, and 4.
1) PSA and JSA are "pretty good." They are nowhere near as good, however, as they advertise themselves to be--but what product is? Everybody makes mistakes--it's part of being human. the problem, however, is that the TPAs would have us trust them implicitly, while at the same time indemnifying themselves against all liability and responsibility for their mistakes.
2) Often we see mistakes that just should not have been made. Pure carelessness is the most likely explanation.
4) We see far too many instances of items being passed when no--or too few--actual exemplars exist.

[travrosty]

Someone said psa wouldn't pass it 5 years ago, well spence was psa's top guy just a little over 5 years ago, and look what spence is passing now. It is in my opinion, no good.

http://catalog.greyflannelauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?lotid=26104

Does anyone think this is real?

These companies pass them then, now and whenever.

Whose says they have gotten better. They both passed a Thomas Sayers boxing autograph from the 1860's with no exemplars.

Here are some pics from the jsa ruth ball that sold north of 85,000 dollars in the grey flannel auction. Some of the sigs are shaky, the Dutch Reuther, really? Are we really going to defend these companies come heck or high water? It's insanity multiplied.

Lot more to come, not even close to being done here. Let's get opinions on this one. Whaddya think? Full JSA LOA.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Travis, with all due respect, please don't call me "someone." I also believe Steve Grad was the main authenticator for PSA five years ago and I do believe he would not pass that. Do I think that Spence would have passed it five years ago; possibly. Please note that I am basing my opinion that Steve Grad was the main authenticator for PSA five years ago (I could be wrong).

[travrosty]

Fair enough, sorry, so you are bailing on Spence then, only a PSA guy. Okay. So Grad is good and Spence is not. PSA good, JSA no good then?

Here are two 1927 Yankees spring training signed photos both certed by PSA.

The first one sold in 2004, the second one in 2009. If Grad didn't think it was real in 2009, why didn't he stop the sale at SCP?

Hooks Wiltsie isn't even in the same writing on both photos. Myles Thomas is different, Reuther is different, a lot of them are different, so is PSA still good? The Johnny Nee is way different, but these photos only went for 50k+ and 90k+ so its really nitpicking I suppose.

http://www.ocregister.com/news/sold-187384-photo-yankees.html

[thetruthisoutthere]

I'm not "bailing" on anyone, just stated my opinion on that particular instance.

It's unfortunate but there are honest mistakes. Travis, you have every right to your opinion, whatever it may be. But I will take a person (or a company) that makes honest mistakes over a person (or a company) that blatantly authenticates every autograph that crosses their desk.

I don't know about you, Travis, but I learn something new every day about autographs. I am also certain that the honest authenticators continue to learn about autographs every day.

This thread has turned into a very educational and productive thread, I would hope that you don't turn this into one of your tirades about PSA and JSA. I am sure many of the members here reading this thread are interested in all of our opinions and I think that's great.

[perezfan]

Well said!

[yanks12025]

It does say three sigs were traced over. Would a forger really go that far?


How is the 2009 one fake?? It sounds like it came with provenance.. And is the hooks even his writing? Maybe someone different did it both times. I doubt these would have been signed the same day.

Just give my thoughts, I don't know anything about autos.

[travrosty]

Here is a fresh one I have NEVER shown before.

Legendary auctions, signed photos of Jack Dempsey and Jack Sharkey.

In the opinions of the top experts in boxing, myself and fighttoys.com along with others, these are no good.

The Sharkey is considered a secretarial, and the Dempsey was signed by his manager Jack Kearns, not Dempsey himself. Where are their exemplars they used to certify these?

But this lot has an LOA from PSA/DNA.

The first E in dempsey is the #3 style like his manager Kearns signed for him, Dempsey didnt use the #3 style E. Plus there are 4 other #3 style E's in the inscription also, that is Kearns' style.

The Sharkey is in a totally different style than his vintage signatures.

Is Grad still good? Just asking.

So when PSA/DNA says that you can rest easy knowing it is an authentic autograph, do you believe them? When is the insanity going to stop? \

When they are not certifying a James Jeffries boxing autograph as "James Jeffers" they are doing stuff like this.

Travis Roste


http://www.legendaryauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?lotid=118583

[yanks12025]

Delete

[travrosty]

It does say three sigs were traced over. Would a forger really go that far?


How is the 2009 one fake?? It sounds like it came with provenance.. And is the hooks even his writing? Maybe someone different did it both times. I doubt these would have been signed the same day.

Just give my thoughts, I don't know anything about autos.




They both came with provenance, provenance doesnt mean anything, they are obviously different. Most bogus stuff at auctions has some romantic backstory to it. Backstory means nothing.

[thekingofclout]

I'm not "bailing" on anyone, just stated my opinion on that particular instance.

It's unfortunate but there are honest mistakes. Travis, you have every right to your opinion, whatever it may be. But I will take a person (or a company) that makes honest mistakes over a person (or a company) that blatantly authenticates every autograph that crosses their desk.

I don't know about you, Travis, but I learn something new every day about autographs. I am also certain that the honest authenticators continue to learn about autographs every day.

This thread has turned into a very educational and productive thread, I would hope that you don't turn this into one of your tirades about PSA and JSA. I am sure many of the members here reading this thread are interested in all of our opinions and I think that's great.

Spot on, Chris.

[RichardSimon]

I think it would help people on the board if they saw vintage signatures of Dempsey, so they can compare them to the one that Travis is showing. Obviously my photos and the one that Travis is showing were not signed by the same person, yet the auction I sold one of them in, the one on the left, uses PSA and it was given a PSA auction cert.

[RichardSimon]

They both came with provenance, provenance doesnt mean anything, they are obviously different. Most bogus stuff at auctions has some romantic backstory to it. Backstory means nothing.


I would not agree with that statement.
Even the FBI in some of their published statements has stated (paraphrasing here) that provenance has value.

[travrosty]

I would not agree with that statement.
Even the FBI in some of their published statements has stated (paraphrasing here) that provenance has value.



very few provenance stories are verifiable. most are stories that grandpa got it when babe ruth made a train stop in peoria, then they show an old article in a newspaper that anyone could have gotten anywhere, then that's provenance. It's really nothing.

out of the two photos i have shown of the 1927 spring training yankees, both had so called 'good' provenance, one was from henry Johnson's girlfriend, the other was suppose to have been given by ruppert to a hotel owner, well at least one of these stories is bogus. probably both.

A good autograph doesnt need provenance, so provenance is not important.

way too many of these authenticators are bamboozled by the backstory, we have seen the luis firpo that was as bogus as a three dollar bill certed by spence, and it came from the famous so and so collection. that was probably the provenance, that a famous collector had it in his collection, well halper did that too, (it's from the famous halper collection, so it must be good) and halper had all sorts of far flung stories that were bogus.

If psa or jsa starts authenticating by provenance, then they going down a slippery road. You either authenticate the autograph on its own merits, or you don't, or advertise the company as a 'provenance authentication company'

[travrosty]

Provenance stories just cloud better judgment, all provenance stories do is push a questionable or bogus autograph over the edge to the good side. if it was dead on, no need for provenance, it only helps the so-so autographs gain legs when they shouldn't.

These companies are afraid to give 'no opinions' , or 'unable to authenticate' is what the problem is.

Halper had Ruth hair with provenance3 signed on an envelope by Ruth himself. That provenance really helped, didn't it? It probably pushed it over the edge from "who the heck can know for sure it's ruth hair', to 'well it must be good, it has ruth provenance.'

Provenance is only for the weak autographs. Only one million percent lock solid verifiable provenance helps, and that is almost zero percent of the provenance we see in these auction listings, and in those miniscule cases, the autograph stands up for itself anyway.

I would rather have a dead-on autograph with no provenance, than a shaky looking autograph with good provenance, because the provenance story will fall through way before the dead-on autograph will. Because when it comes down to it, you have to collect autographs, not stories or certs.

[David Atkatz]

You're wrong, Travis. Provenance is not BS stories. Provenance is, above all, verifiable. If it can't be proven that, for example, a piece actually did belong to the person or institution claimed (a photo of him with it, a museum or library stamp, etc.), then it ain't provenance. It's a BS story.

[RichardSimon]

Travs, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Though autographs have to stand on their merits and I would certainly never let a provenance story sway me, I still think that provenance matters. It helps if you are a good BS detector and can tell when the provenance is BS.
Of course when I have the guy who forged the Black Sox items I showed above, the same one I believe who forged the 1927 Yankee baseball, when I have him in my apartment and he is trying to sell me stuff, his provenance meant nothing. He claimed to have a hobby store in Forest Hills and this stuff that he was trying to peddle "just walked into the store."
Someone else who used to post here used to say that to me also.

[David Atkatz]

Once again, provenance is not a story. Provenance is the verifiable history of an object; key word here being verifiable. An auction catalog, say, from the 1950s, in which an item appears, proves where that item was at that time. It thus could not have been forged, say, by someone who hadn't even been born then.

Again, provenance is not the word-of-mouth story that a seller tries to hand you. True or not, that's just a story.

Understand what provenance is, before you criticise.

[Mr. Zipper]

Once again, provenance is not a story. Provenance is the verifiable history of an object; key word here being verifiable. An auction catalog, say, from the 1950s, in which an item appears, proves where that item was at that time. It thus could not have been forged, say, by someone who hadn't even been born then.

Again, provenance is not the word-of-mouth story that a seller tries to hand you. True or not, that's just a story.

Understand what provenance is, before you criticise.

Agreed. By definition provenance is provable history or chain of ownership.

[RichardSimon]

You are correct and the word of mouth story from the young man in my apartment was totally transparent to me and I knew his word of mouth was BS.
He never fooled me nor did his partner fool me when he tried to sell me that 1920's NY Giants ball.
I always judge the autographs on merit but I do find that most of the word of mouth stories I am told, ok I won't call it provenance, are more often than not believable. Certainly not always but more often than not.
I deal a lot with people outside the hobby and have found much success in dealing with them.
When I buy a Roger Maris signed photograph, and totally think the autograph is authentic, and the photo is inscribed To Yvonne who told me she worked in Maris' dentists office, and asked him for an autograph, and I make my payment to Yvonne G------, well, I tend to think that person's word of mouth story is true.

[batsballsbases]

Provenance stories just cloud better judgment, all provenance stories do is push a questionable or bogus autograph over the edge to the good side. if it was dead on, no need for provenance, it only helps the so-so autographs gain legs when they shouldn't.

These companies are afraid to give 'no opinions' , or 'unable to authenticate' is what the problem is.

Halper had Ruth hair with provenance3 signed on an envelope by Ruth himself. That provenance really helped, didn't it? It probably pushed it over the edge from "who the heck can know for sure it's ruth hair', to 'well it must be good, it has ruth provenance.'

Provenance is only for the weak autographs. Only one million percent lock solid verifiable provenance helps, and that is almost zero percent of the provenance we see in these auction listings, and in those miniscule cases, the autograph stands up for itself anyway.

I would rather have a dead-on autograph with no provenance, than a shaky looking autograph with good provenance, because the provenance story will fall through way before the dead-on autograph will. Because when it comes down to it, you have to collect autographs, not stories or certs.
I have to agree with the rest provenance is a very important aspect of an item. Sometimes provenance is more important to me than Most of the experts put together. "if it was dead on" as you say dead on to who an autograph expert where it has already been proven time and time again that even the best at the game can and will continue to be fooled at the expense of the poor person who is willing to put down hard earned money on the word of a So called expert! Please as I have said time and time again unless you were there when the item was signed it is impossible to say with 100% certainty that the item was signed by the person who signed it. And that my friend is the real truth.

[David Atkatz]

It may not be possible to say with 100% certainty. But it is possible to say, at times, with, oh, 99.5% certainty. That's good enough for most.

[slidekellyslide]

Hey guys, a simple request - Stop using swear words. Thanks.

[batsballsbases]

David my friend and you know you are 99.5% might be a good average to hang your hat on but that .5% ended up costing you alot of money!

[David Atkatz]

Please as I have said time and time again unless you were there when the item was signed it is impossible to say with 100% certainty that the item was signed by the person who signed it. And that my friend is the real truth.That holds for all "collectables," not just autographs. Can anyone prove, with 100% certainty, that the 1934 Goudey Gehrig in front of me is real? Can it be proven that someone hasn't figured out how to just-about-perfectly counterfeit Goudeys? It ain't likely, but it can't be 100% ruled out.

[David Atkatz]

David my friend and you know you are 99.5% might be a good average to hang your hat on but that .5% ended up costing you alot of money!True enough! But that's the risk any collector, of any collectable, takes.

[barrysloate]

With any transaction the buyer must utilize as much information as possible, and provenance is a very important tool, in some cases the most important. But Travrosty makes a good point that every bad piece will have a story to go with it. So it's important to assess and verify provenance. Having someone say, I know it's old because I bought it from an antique dealer is not acceptable provenance. But there are some very great pieces that have resided with families for generations, and the story behind them may be a critical piece of the whole puzzle.

[David Atkatz]

It's not just "not acceptable provenance," Barry. It's not provenance at all.

In the fine art world, the key element in passing a forgery is manufacturing a provenance. That is not making up a convincing story, it is physically manufacturing a paper trail that "proves" the piece's age and history.

[barrysloate]

Agreed David, but I can't tell you how many times I have been offered reproductions, usually advertising pieces, and when I tell the seller the piece is a modern repro, he tells me that's impossible because he purchased it at an antique store. That's the kind of story Travrosty was calling out.

[RichardSimon]

Hey guys, a simple request - Stop using swear words. Thanks.

Sorry Dan, I thought that particular word was acceptable.
Would you want me to go back and soften it up?

[slidekellyslide]

I think I changed most of them to BS already. Not a real big deal and normally I'd gloss over it, but a thread on the other side turned nasty that I had to clean up a bit and I'd like to be consistent.

Thanks.

[David Atkatz]

Agreed David, but I can't tell you how many times I have been offered reproductions, usually advertising pieces, and when I tell the seller the piece is a modern repro, he tells me that's impossible because he purchased it at an antique store. That's the kind of story Travrosty was calling out.I quite understand that, Barry. But in calling that story "provenance" he shows a (common) misunderstanding of wha t provenance actually is.

I suggest you read "Provenance: How a Con Man and a Forger Rewrote the History of Modern Art, by Laney Salisbury, and Aly Sujo. Here's the publisher's description (emphasis added):

Filled with extraordinary characters and told at breakneck speed, Provenance reads like a well-plotted thriller. But this is most certainly not fiction. It is the astonishing narrative of one of the most far-reaching and elaborate cons in the history of art forgery. Stretching from London to Paris to New York, investigative reporters Laney Salisbury and Aly Sujo recount the tale of infamous con man and unforgettable villain John Drewe and his accomplice, the affable artist John Myatt. Together they exploited the archives of British art institutions to irrevocably legitimize the hundreds of pieces they forged, many of which are still considered genuine and hang in prominent museums and private collections today.

[batsballsbases]

Yes Richard please control yourself. Dont make me reach thru my computer screen and give you a slap!:D:D

[barrysloate]

Provenance is not an exact science. Usually the very best provenance is finding something that has been with a single family for a long time, say a ball Babe Ruth signed in the 1940's, or a Beatles signature from 1964, that has never been on the market ever, and you become the very first owner after the original family. But even that is based upon feeling confidant that the family isn't lying. And sometimes they do lie. Good judgment and common sense is important.

[batsballsbases]

very few provenance stories are verifiable. most are stories that grandpa got it when babe ruth made a train stop in peoria, then they show an old article in a newspaper that anyone could have gotten anywhere, then that's provenance. It's really nothing.

out of the two photos i have shown of the 1927 spring training yankees, both had so called 'good' provenance, one was from henry Johnson's girlfriend, the other was suppose to have been given by ruppert to a hotel owner, well at least one of these stories is bogus. probably both.

A good autograph doesnt need provenance, so provenance is not important.

way too many of these authenticators are bamboozled by the backstory, we have seen the luis firpo that was as bogus as a three dollar bill certed by spence, and it came from the famous so and so collection. that was probably the provenance, that a famous collector had it in his collection, well halper did that too, (it's from the famous halper collection, so it must be good) and halper had all sorts of far flung stories that were bogus.

If psa or jsa starts authenticating by provenance, then they going down a slippery road. You either authenticate the autograph on its own merits, or you don't, or advertise the company as a 'provenance authentication company'

Just for the record as to why I disagree with Travis on why Provanence is so important or why provanence does play a role in a story, here is one for you. I have worked for many famous people in my lifetime. I was given this picture and many others by a great man whos name is George George. Google him and you will see who he was. Since we have been talking about Jack Dempsey. Here is a picture of him ,Standing next to him is Rube Goldberg. George George was Rube Goldbergs son. Changed his name for professional reasons. Like I said google him and you will find out why. I have no COAs no letters,no nothing . There is no way you would ever convince me that I would need one as this picture was given to me by his son. I dont think Jack would ever taken the picture with Rube then gave the man a fake signature! Do you! George died in I believe 2008at the age of 88,a great friend. Who knows this story other that me well up until now no one. But now you all do. Provanence? You tell me.

[RichardSimon]

Provenance is not an exact science. Usually the very best provenance is finding something that has been with a single family for a long time, say a ball Babe Ruth signed in the 1940's, or a Beatles signature from 1964, that has never been on the market ever, and you become the very first owner after the original family. But even that is based upon feeling confidant that the family isn't lying. And sometimes they do lie. Good judgment and common sense is important.

A very strong +1 from me.
The art world and the autograph world obviously operate very differently.
People in the art world will knowingly create a paper trail for a piece.
But the family that is selling me a 50 or 60 or more year old autograph book, that grandma got by standing outside the NYC nightclubs, did not create a paper trail for the book. They would never have thought of doing that. You judge the autographs and you appreciate their word of mouth story.
Barry and I seem to have used the word provenance a bit loosely according to the definition presented in this thread. But as far as I know that word has been used in this hobby for "word of mouth stories."

[barrysloate]

Richard- if someone wanted to make up an incredibly elaborate story that seemed so convincing nobody would even question it, I'm sure they could. That's why you really have to assess the story and decide for yourself. It's not a science. I've heard some very credible stories attached to really significant pieces, and there is always a part of me that wonders if they are no more than just very carefully thought out lies.

[RichardSimon]

Yes Richard please control yourself. Dont make me reach thru my computer screen and give you a slap!:D:D

Al,
It would be easier for you to reach over and slap my son, he lives in CT too. :D

[RichardSimon]

Richard- if someone wanted to make up an incredibly elaborate story that seemed so convincing nobody would even question it, I'm sure they could. That's why you really have to assess the story and decide for yourself. It's not a science. I've heard some very credible stories attached to really significant pieces, and there is always a part of me that wonders if they are no more than just very carefully thought out lies.

Absolutely true. I assess the autographs and stories all the time and consider myself to be an excellent judge of both.
I have to tell the board a good story here.
Years ago, get a phone call from a guy who tells me he has a Munson era Yankee signed team ball. We made an appointment and he shows up with his two sons. He had told me his story about how he got into the dugout and the ball was signed for him. Well when I meet him, he proceeds to pull out a facsimile machine signed ball. I tell him what he has and he gets really angry. "I got the Yankees to sign this ball." He is raising his voice to me, in front of his two sons. Well I said "you may have gotten the Yankees to sign a ball, but not this ball." I was glad that this was taking place in front of a couple of people as he obviously could not do anything, but he actually shook me up wth his phony anger.

[batsballsbases]

See Richard great people live in Ct.!!:eek: My mother and father grew up in the Bronx.

[David Atkatz]

Barry and I seem to have used the word provenance a bit loosely according to the definition presented in this thread. But as far as I know that word has been used in this hobby for "word of mouth stories."`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

[RichardSimon]

Barry, According to the prior post, I think you and I have just had a great fall and nobody can put us back together again.

[RichardSimon]

See Richard great people live in Ct.!!:eek: My mother and father grew up in the Bronx.

Me too,,, some good times there as a kid.

[batsballsbases]

See I knew there was some Bronx in you ! They were married at the Immaculate Conseption church on Gun Hill Rd. Took thier photos at the Botanical Gardens across from Fordham. I will have to ask my mother where she lived. She is 87. Lives 5 minutes from me.

[RichardSimon]

I lived at 174th and So. Blvd and then 219 and Wh Plains Rd. near Gun Hill Rd.

[batsballsbases]

I will check with her tomorrow. I know my father moved around alot in the bronx.

[barrysloate]

Barry, According to the prior post, I think you and I have just had a great fall and nobody can put us back together again.

It wouldn't be the first time.:)

[batsballsbases]

Richard,
Alerton Ave and Morris Ave

[RichardSimon]

That was not near me.

[shelly]

I have read this thread over and over again and I have one big question. If David had not received the advice of Jodi and had placed this ball in an auction with a top auction house, would the letter he had from 1999 been good enough to allow the ball to be sold.
Or would the auction house re-examine the ball now? I think they would re-examine it. At the time this ball was examined authenticators had no idea what skills certain forgers had. This ball was done by one of the best. I think that some of the better authenticators now know the work of this forger (Johnny F..g ) extremely well and probably would never pass it. That is why it baffles me why you are thanking someone for not putting up a ball that we all know today would never pass a top auction house.

[thetruthisoutthere]

I have read this thread over and over again and I have one big question. If David had not received the advice of Jodi and had placed this ball in an auction with a top auction house, would the letter he had from 1999 been good enough to allow the ball to be sold.
Or would the auction house re-examine the ball now? I think they would re-examine it. At the time this ball was examined authenticators had no idea what skills certain forgers had. This ball was done by one of the best. I think that some of the better authenticators now know the work of this forger (Johnny F..g ) extremely well and probably would never pass it. That is why it baffles me why you are thanking someone for not putting up a ball that we all know today would never pass a top auction house.

Ditto!!!!

[David Atkatz]

Right you are, Shelly. The reason I posted here was not so others could learn from my mistake, but because I knew I'd never get away with trying to foist it off on someone else.

This coming from one who's been convicted--literally--of selling forgeries. :rolleyes:

[thetruthisoutthere]

Right you are, Shelly. The reason I posted here was not so others could learn from my mistake, but because I knew I'd never get away with trying to foist it off on someone else.

This coming from one who's been convicted--literally--of selling forgeries. :rolleyes:

You can write whatever you want about Shelly, but I am proud to call Shelly my friend. Since "Operation Bullpen" Shelly has done, and continues to do, all he can to assist in ridding the hobby of the "bad guys."

He has also paid his debt to society and refunded monies to those who purchased bad stuff from him.

[David Atkatz]

Then I guess I must be one of the "bad guys."

[Caseyatbat]

Chris, catching up to your comment from yesterday. Yes I share your opinion that the ball would not pass now or five years ago. I was just asking David so I could hear the entire story. If he had re-submitted the ball to be authenticated again since he had owned it because I was interested to see how the story played out. At the time in the thread, the only information we had was that David owns this ball and mentioned it had been approved by Spence in 1999 and now is believed to be a forgery.

[D. Bergin]

I have read this thread over and over again and I have one big question. If David had not received the advice of Jodi and had placed this ball in an auction with a top auction house, would the letter he had from 1999 been good enough to allow the ball to be sold.
Or would the auction house re-examine the ball now? I think they would re-examine it. At the time this ball was examined authenticators had no idea what skills certain forgers had. This ball was done by one of the best. I think that some of the better authenticators now know the work of this forger (Johnny F..g ) extremely well and probably would never pass it. That is why it baffles me why you are thanking someone for not putting up a ball that we all know today would never pass a top auction house.


Nice racket the authenticators have then. Keep submitting the same piece every 5-10 years, because we know more now, then we did then. :confused:

[David Atkatz]

At the time in the thread, the only information we had was that David owns this ball and mentioned it had been approved by Spence in 1999 and now is believed to be a forgery.That's all the information there is.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Then I guess I must be one of the "bad guys."

Why would you make that comment? Have I ever called you a "bad guy?" Do you have a guilty conscience about something?

[Fuddjcal]

i've got to say guys, and i will take some flack for this, but collecting autographs is one f**king miserable hobby. Every collecting field has to deal with some level of fraud- coins are cleaned, stamps are reperforated, baseball cards are trimmed- but the fraud in the autograph hobby is so off the charts i don't know how people can really enjoy it. And the idea that an autograph collector needs to educate himself may be somewhat true, but take david a., who has been studying yankee memorabilia for decades. He certainly is at the top of the learning curve, yet look at this stinking mess. I have to think a 27 yankee ball in that condition is worth well north of 50k, and his example is now worth exactly zero. Hobbies are supposed to be relaxing endeavors; i would need a regular supply of xanax to deal with this shit. This is going to drive so many collectors out of autographs and will have a significant impact on its future. If somebody asked me the best way to get started in autograph collecting, i would tell him to collect hummels instead.

+1000

[mark evans]

I have read this thread over and over again and I have one big question. If David had not received the advice of Jodi and had placed this ball in an auction with a top auction house, would the letter he had from 1999 been good enough to allow the ball to be sold.
Or would the auction house re-examine the ball now? I think they would re-examine it. At the time this ball was examined authenticators had no idea what skills certain forgers had. This ball was done by one of the best. I think that some of the better authenticators now know the work of this forger (Johnny F..g ) extremely well and probably would never pass it. That is why it baffles me why you are thanking someone for not putting up a ball that we all know today would never pass a top auction house.

This may well be true. Nevertheless, David deserves credit, in my view, for exposing the story of his ball for the benefit of all.

By the way, both Shelly and David have been helpful to me in the past and, in my view, are assets to the hobby. No need for conflict.

Mark

[keithsky]

Didn't the certs the TPA issued years ago say in the cert "Guarented Authentic" where now they say "Our Opininon". If it says Gurarented Authentic I would think you could go back on Spence for that. That is why they changed the wording because of that so they won't be held responsible for something like this. Just my opinion.

[David Atkatz]

This 1997 SCD ad was just passed on to me. Compare that Ruth signature on the left to the one on my ball.
It seems that someone was aware of this forger's work as early as 1997.

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/datkatz/27yankfang001.jpg

[RichardSimon]

Nice racket the authenticators have then. Keep submitting the same piece every 5-10 years, because we know more now, then we did then. :confused:

Dave,
I can understand the frustration in your comment.
However, as much as everyone would like authentication to be an exact science, it is not.
Until someone comes up with a computer program to do it, there will always be a learning process involved. A daily learning process.
Everyone here knows that I am not a defender of the alphabet soup guys but I have to state what I think about your statement.
I think the policy of TPA auction house LOA's and then "send us more money for a real LOA" is reprehensible. I have openly disagreed with some of their opinions. However, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one statement you made about authentication.

[travrosty]

Some people see an old loa from psa and they ask for the piece to be "recertified" before they will buy it. Seems like an LOA is not all what it is cracked up to be. I have heard people say that you should look at an older psa cert with some skepticism because they didn't know as much back then.

But then what good is the LOA then if any LOA's issued before a certain year are looked at with a jaundiced eye? A guarantee would solve that problem. If they were so bad way back in the day, but issued a guarantee, let them pay for their mistakes. They took the customers money and put it in their pocket. They should be on the hook in some capacity if they screw up.

But they didnt issue a guarantee, so customers are stuck trying to figure out when the cutoff date is. Hint:there isn't any. It's as bad now as it was then.

[novakjr]

I've come to the conclusion that any authentication(aside from Morales and such), just means that they didn't have enough evidence to support it being fake at the time of authentication.

The simple point is that authenticators have ZERO way of telling you if something was definitively signed by an individual, unless they witnessed it first hand. All they have is a way of telling definitively that certain ones weren't.

[earlywynnfan]

This 1997 SCD ad was just passed on to me. Compare that Ruth signature on the left to the one on my ball.
It seems that someone was aware of this forger's work as early as 1997.

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/datkatz/27yankfang001.jpg

Speaking of which, whatever happened to Richard Galasso? Is he still around?

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

[RichardSimon]

Rich Galasso is alive but for the most part is out of the hobby, as far as I know.

[steve B]

That sort of thing does happen, and I suspect we'll see it more often as available technology gets cheaper and better.

An example from stamp collecting.
There was a group of stamps from a time when the BEP was experimenting. The group was supposedly printed on paper that had a higher clay content to help mitigate shrinkage of the sheet while drying. For the most part the paper was grayish and was known as "china clay paper" stamps on it were also rare and expensive. And nearly all the recognized ones had certs saying "it is genuine". Pretty clear cut right?

Until a couple kids (Literally) Wondered why some were more gray than others. And how you'd prove It was china clay paper. Enter a family member with access to a spectrograph, and a poor condition but certified stamp and a handful of the commo ones. Surprise! NO difference. so they asked around and got permission to test a few more of the special ones, both lighter and darker gray. Still no difference.
So the china clay papers were discredited and removed from the catalog.
They've gone from experimental rarities to oddities produced on defective paper.

And none of them would get a certificate today as anything else.

On the flip side, the once catalog listed imperforate coils that were delisted because they couldnlt be told apart from carefully cut regular stamps are now back because there are details of how they were cut that can now be checked.

Steve B
Some people see an old loa from psa and they ask for the piece to be "recertified" before they will buy it. Seems like an LOA is not all what it is cracked up to be. I have heard people say that you should look at an older psa cert with some skepticism because they didn't know as much back then.

But then what good is the LOA then if any LOA's issued before a certain year are looked at with a jaundiced eye? A guarantee would solve that problem. If they were so bad way back in the day, but issued a guarantee, let them pay for their mistakes. They took the customers money and put it in their pocket. They should be on the hook in some capacity if they screw up.

But they didnt issue a guarantee, so customers are stuck trying to figure out when the cutoff date is. Hint:there isn't any. It's as bad now as it was then.

[Frozen in Time]

As some of you may know, I am a relatively new member of the forums and focus primarily on vintage photos of Mantle. That being said, I have been absolutely fascinated by this and similar threads dealing with the authenticity of autographs, some of which have been very helpful for me in evaluating Mickey's signature.

So realizing that I am not in any way an expert on autographs but have been shocked and amazed at the number of forgeries being discussed here (and obviously on other sites and publications) I would like to ask what I suspect is a really naive (and perhaps stupid) question:

Given the almost unanimous opinion here that Coaches Corner Auctions continuously lists obvious fakes and the repeated mention in the forums of work(s) done by the same forger(s) or similar statements implying that the identity of the forger(s) may be known to someone why do those with such information not inform the branch of the FBI that deals with these matters?

Would not the FBI be interested in at least looking into these suspected cases of fraud (backed by the observations posted on the forums as reasonable cause to investigate) and would not such FBI interest deter those who continue to profit from their deception and criminal behavior?

It just seems to me that some steps have to be taken to stop this nonsense that is ruining the hobby and that (based on their posts) at least some on these forums have the knowledge (and perhaps evidence) to help.

[Bigdaddy]

I know it's been said here before, but once again, thanks David for stepping up (in a public forum even) and showing us the forged '27 Yankees ball. Any time an example can be raised and we, as a community, can learn something from it, then we're all a bit better for it.

[RichardSimon]

As some of you may know, I am a relatively new member of the forums and focus primarily on vintage photos of Mantle. That being said, I have been absolutely fascinated by this and similar threads dealing with the authenticity of autographs, some of which have been very helpful for me in evaluating Mickey's signature.

So realizing that I am not in any way an expert on autographs but have been shocked and amazed at the number of forgeries being discussed here (and obviously on other sites and publications) I would like to ask what I suspect is a really naive (and perhaps stupid) question:

Given the almost unanimous opinion here that Coaches Corner Auctions continuously lists obvious fakes and the repeated mention in the forums of work(s) done by the same forger(s) or similar statements implying that the identity of the forger(s) may be known to someone why do those with such information not inform the branch of the FBI that deals with these matters?

Would not the FBI be interested in at least looking into these suspected cases of fraud (backed by the observations posted on the forums as reasonable cause to investigate) and would not such FBI interest deter those who continue to profit from their deception and criminal behavior?

It just seems to me that some steps have to be taken to stop this nonsense that is ruining the hobby and that (based on their posts) at least some on these forums have the knowledge (and perhaps evidence) to help.

Believe me we all are hoping that law enforcement does something more.
But knowledge and evidence are two different things.

[David Atkatz]

Especially when the high priests keep the knowledge secret.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Especially when the high priests keep the knowledge secret.

What do you mean by that comment?

[novakjr]

C'mon David, really? This was a somewhat reasonable and informative thread. At one point in this thread you noted that one of the reasons you began to suspect this ball is because of Chris' posts. And then you get bored and start poking at him. C'mon, seriously. You gotta knock that off...

[David Atkatz]

My post had nothing at all to do with Chris. He can flatter himself and think that it does, but, regardless, it does not.

[thetruthisoutthere]

My post had nothing at all to do with Chris. He can flatter himself and think that it does, but, regardless, it does not.

You really are an antagonist, David.

I never wrote that your post had anything to do with me. I simply asked "What do you mean by that comment?"

[novakjr]

My post had nothing at all to do with Chris. He can flatter himself and think that it does, but, regardless, it does not.
It was obvious, even before Chris mentioned something. I'm not gonna get into any arguments with you. But I call it how I see it. If you've got issues with people not going into details about what they know, then just suck it up and deal with it, instead of constantly poking them and trying to antagonize them into something.

Sorry Chris for jumping to any conclusions for you. But I thought it was that obvious, and it kinda pissed me off a bit

[David Atkatz]

You really are an antagonist, David.

I never wrote that your post had anything to do with me. I simply asked "What do you mean by that comment?"I never thought you did. I wasn't talking to you, Chris. I was addressing David, whose post follows yours.

[thetruthisoutthere]

It was obvious, even before Chris mentioned something. I'm not gonna get into any arguments with you. But I call it how I see it. If you've got issues with people not going into details about what they know, then just suck it up and deal with it, instead of constantly poking them and trying to antagonize them into something.

Sorry Chris for jumping to any conclusions for you. But I thought it was that obvious, and it kinda pissed me off a bit.

You're right on the money, David. There are some things that I won't talk about and there are other things that I can't talk about.

[novakjr]

You're right on the money, David. There are some things that I won't talk about and there are other things that I can't talk about.
Sorry Chris for singling you out, and dragging you into his mess. It's been brought to my attention that the post wasn't necessarily intended for you. At least not solely.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Sorry Chris for singling you out, and dragging you into his mess. It's been brought to my attention that the post wasn't necessarily intended for you. At least not solely.

Well, the fact that Mr. Atkatz mentioned my name in his reply tells me that it was an intended shot at me.

[novakjr]

Well, the fact that Mr. Atkatz mentioned my name in his reply tells me that it was an intended shot at me.

He might've mentioned you because I brought it up though. I'm just gonna bow out of this before it gets any worse.

[GrayGhost]

Enough of this please

[David Atkatz]

Well, the fact that Mr. Atkatz mentioned my name in his reply tells me that it was an intended shot at me.My original post about "knowledge" had nothing at all to do with you, Chris. Believe me, you never came to mind when I wrote it. After David mentioned you, I answered him, letting him know that. I apologize for the "flatter himself" bit, though. That was completely uncalled for on my part.

[RichardSimon]

Not to worry David N.,I will take the advice given to me by others on this thread to ignore the baiting.
There have been so many negative posts directed at Atkatz recently that I don't have to say anything.
Scott - I will no longer post about him. It is done.

[David Atkatz]

Not to worry David N.,I will take the advice given to me by others on this thread to ignore the baiting.
There have been so many negative posts directed at Atkatz recently that I don't have to say anything.
Scott - I will no longer post about him. It is done.I am not baiting you, Richard. I'm letting it be known that I-and others--are extremely tired of your "I know, but I can't tell you" posts. If you can't offer enough information to be useful, than why post at all? And don't give us that "I'm afraid I'll be sued" BS. In 1997, three years before I purchased the '27 ball, Richard Galasso was not afraid to publicize "Johnny's" work in SCD, complete with photos. But you, who claim to have been aware of his work for twenty years, never contacted me with your doubts about the ball--photos of which I had posted here many times over the years. Nope. But then one day I pissed you off by commenting on your habit of withholding any and all actually useful information in your enigmatic "where's Johnny F*** today?" post, and then you tell me "well, you should know who I'm talking about--you have some of his work," in order to upset me the only way you can think of.

Now, I'm not saying you were obligated to have let me know of your suspicions, long before, but it sure would have been the decent thing to do.
So keep on pretending to take that high road.

[thetruthisoutthere]

I am not baiting you, Richard. I'm letting it be known that I-and others--are extremely tired of your "I know, but I can't tell you" posts. If you can't offer enough information to be useful, than why post at all? And don't give us that "I'm afraid I'll be sued" BS. In 1997, three years before I purchased the '27 ball, Richard Galasso was not afraid to publicize "Johnny's" work in SCD, complete with photos. But you, who claim to have been aware of his work for twenty years, never contacted me with your doubts about the ball--photos of which I had posted here many times over the years. Nope. But then one day I pissed you off by commenting on your habit of withholding any and all actually useful information in your enigmatic "where's Johnny F*** today?" post, and then you tell me "well, you should know who I'm talking about--you have some of his work," in order to upset me the only way you can think of.

Now, I'm not saying you were obligated to have let me know of your suspicions, long before, but it sure would have been the decent thing to do.
So keep on pretending to take that high road.

David, explain to the board, how does Richard Galasso's advertisement place him in danger of being sued? He pictures and publicizes a baseball; he does not state who forged it. Did you think that Johnny was going to sue Galasso over that ad? I know you are not stupid, but are you really serious? I can see it now, Johnny saying: "Yeah, I forged that baseball and now I am going to sue." What legal system do you live in David?


And I want to remind the board of something; you’re the one who immediately stopped posting when the Frank Prisco thread was running. You can’t make your phony claim that you stopped posting because you had nothing else to add to the thread, because you always have something to say. Richard has been sued two times because of his courage to speak out. You have no right to question Richard when it comes to that subject of confronting the bad guys. You ran when confronted; you can deny it all you want, as I know you will, but we know what really happened.

Your ridiculous attempt to have Prisco answer your silly thread, when you had to know he would never answer you was laughable. "Hey Frank, this is David, I called you a crook, please help me now." Seriously?


As for your “1927 Yankees” team-signed baseball, I for one, had never seen the complete photos of your baseball on Net54. Then one day back in August 2011, I took a look at your avatar and something struck me as "weird." It was then I emailed you and asked you to send me photos of your ball. After examining your photos, I knew the sigs on your ball were not authentic. I remember sending you an email and writing “Nice ball.” That was during the time when we were cordial and I didn’t have the heart to break the news to you. Why should I be the messenger when it is always the messenger who gets blamed

[Mr. Zipper]

In this thread and in others, there have been some who have expressed sentiments along the lines of “This is why I would never collect autographs,” etc., etc.

I think it is important to keep this in perspective. While I feel terrible for David’s situation, one assumes much higher risk when going into the deep end of the pool. High dollar items attract master forgers and con men – the types of items that may even fool credible experts.

For the vast majority of “average” collectors (of which I include myself) who collect autographs of Mantle, Williams, Koufax, et.al., there is much less risk. Certainly forgeries of these figures exist, but they are not the master forgeries that can typically fool experts. By educating yourself, networking with experienced collectors, frequenting places like this and buying from good dealers, you can have an autograph collection that is relatively worry-free. Dare I say it lest I risk the scorn of the alphabet bashers :p , with your Mantles, DiMaggios, etc., PSA and JSA are reliable with these types of autographs the vast majority of the time and are a relatively safe way to build a collection.

[slidekellyslide]

How did the two suits go against Richard? I would think if you have evidence that they are forgers then they sure wouldn't want to take you to court..that opens them up to a whole lot of questions they probably wouldn't want. Nobody in here is afraid to accuse Coaches Corner of all kinds of illegalities. Is the proof against this Johnny F guy too flimsy?

[RichardSimon]

How did the two suits go against Richard? I would think if you have evidence that they are forgers then they sure wouldn't want to take you to court..that opens them up to a whole lot of questions they probably wouldn't want. Nobody in here is afraid to accuse Coaches Corner of all kinds of illegalities. Is the proof against this Johnny F guy too flimsy?

Dan - Both lawsuits against me were dismissed. Though my attorneys still got paid, they did very good work and billed me accordingly for that.
I am happy to also say that I did sue an ebay autograph seller for libel and won. He and his wife did write out a check to me and issue a formal apology.
Though the money I got from them did not come close to my expenses involved in defending myself in the two lawsuits against me.
It is not cheap to get sued in America. I could have taken ten really nice vacations for what it cost me to defend myself. The English have a much better system. If you sue someone in England and lose, you pay the legal fees for yourself and the person you sued.
Proof against Johnny is non existent. Nobody even knows where he is, though I do think I see his work at times. It migt have been work that was done many years ago.
There are lots of deserved accusations made here against CC.
Who knows what will happen there?

[GrayGhost]

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080202231027/uncyclopedia/images/archive/1/11/20080202231407!Beating-a-dead-horse.gif

[mr2686]

It's not dead, it's just pining for the fiords!

[Forever Young]

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080202231027/uncyclopedia/images/archive/1/11/20080202231407!beating-a-dead-horse.gif

hahah-awesome

[thetruthisoutthere]

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080202231027/uncyclopedia/images/archive/1/11/20080202231407!Beating-a-dead-horse.gif

Scott, that cracked me up, but you make a good point; but at the same time I will not tolerate that kind of attack.

Some people have suggested that I ignore some of David's comments; for the most part I do, but some I cannot. I don't like getting into a pissing match here on Net54. But some comments cannot be ignored and must be addressed.

But here's an idea; let's address the below.

David, you are the self proclaimed Yankee expert. Why would you need someone else's help? Why did you have to go to Jodi? I bet you thought of yourself as the best guy in the hobby regarding Yankee autographs and yet you went to a former TPA. As a matter of fact, from what I've read here on Net54, you were studying vintage Yankees autographs well before you purchased your "1927 Yankees" team-signed ball. How did that ball fool you for twelve years?

[Forever Young]

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080202231027/uncyclopedia/images/archive/1/11/20080202231407!beating-a-dead-horse.gif

again!!!

[RichardSimon]

Anyway to stop that guy from beating his horse? :):).
Poor animal has taken a lot today.

[Fuddjcal]

I too share some of David's sentiments on knowing the guys ball was probably fake, but not being able to tell him??? It would have started the same pissing match we have now...probably even worse. Situation just smells foul for everyone, but no one is more damaged than the poor guy who was duped.

I also see Richard's point about putting a guys name out there and then getting sued by the crook. Sort of the way Steve Cyrkin is being sued by Christopher MoralLESS for moderating and putting up a blog that states the truth about this boob and his rubber-stamping services??????? A complete joke! But it can happen. So I can see the flip side of the coin on this as well. It is expensive to get sued in America.

I wish I knew more about the whole forgery thing going on too, like Richard and Chris do. They do share as much as they feel comfortable sharing. I personally don't care about sharing everything I know, (which isn't much) so It's a good thing they don't tell me:D otherwise, I could crack under pressure.:D

[Caseyatbat]

This question is for David regarding your mint 1928 Babe Ruth signed baseball. Is it possible for that ball to be a "replica" Babe Ruth signed ball? I have seen a strikingly similar ball being offered several times over the past year or so as a replica. I have attached a couple pictures for you to look at. The first is your ball, and the second is a picture I found in my history of the replica. Please also note, this same replica was also offered in various forms considering pen color and ball condition.

[noserider]

This question is for David regarding your mint 1928 Babe Ruth signed baseball. Is it possible for that ball to be a "replica" Babe Ruth signed ball? I have seen a strikingly similar ball being offered several times over the past year or so as a replica. I have attached a couple pictures for you to look at. The first is your ball, and the second is a picture I found in my history of the replica. Please also note, this same replica was also offered in various forms considering pen color and ball condition.


The plot thickens. Nice observation.

[yanks12025]

I don't think those two balls look alike(Notice the B). You have to remember the autos that guy used for his reprint balls came from real ones. And I'm pretty sure David bought his ball before the guy started making those reprints you showed.

[earlywynnfan]

I don't think those two balls look alike. You have to remember the autos that guy used for his reprint balls came from real ones. And I'm pretty sure David bought his ball before the guy started making those reprints you showed.

Those autos are exact. The bad news would be that this is a repro. The good news would be that the artist used David's ball as his exemplar. I sure hope it's the latter, for David's sake.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

[yanks12025]

Look at the loop in the B. The reprint one is alittle thinner, while David's is bigger.

[Forever Young]

same auto... Not sure if it matters but the stitching is going in opposite directions...:) def diff ball..so hopefully David's was used to make the reproductions.

[perezfan]

Same exact auto... note the placement of the quotes. Brock... the smaller picture may just distort it a little.

Also hoping that David's was the exemplar used to make the repros :eek:

[khkco4bls]

not the same, look at the line from the B to the E. one goes straight the other to the top of the E. I have to disagree

[batsballsbases]

Looks like the same auto to me also. Look at that small little extra line hanging down on the lower bottom of the R. :eek:

[Frozen in Time]

Looks exactly the same to me. Perhaps if the smaller image was enlarged and the ball rotated to the same angle and size as the ball in the larger image the similarities would be more pronounced.

[packs]

Looks like the same auto to me. The quotes are placed in the exact same place.

[Caseyatbat]

I don't think there is much question about whether they are the same or not. I believe they are absolutely the same. The big question is, is David's the original one? For this artist to make a replica of this ball; he either had to have possession of the original ball while doing so, or he would have to have very detailed close up images of the original in order to make a replica as detailed as that one is.

I did do a pretty thorough search through all of the major auction houses in the last 10 years to see if any of them had sold that particular Babe Ruth ball in the past and I was not able to find it. In order for the artist to get close up detailed images of the original Ruth ball he had to have gotten them from somewhere. There are not any on the internet of the original. If David has had possession of the original this whole time, where did this artist get such detailed pictures to make the replica? This ball looks like it would be a 50K+ Ball. It is usually not very difficult to find the Ruth's that sold for that much.

As much as it is going to kill many people on this forum for me to say, a simple PSA or JSA letter would be the end of this conversation. This is one of the exact reasons why I believe they are so important in this hobby. These replica's that are being made are actually pretty dam good. You really need to have the ball in person to know for sure. If you are just looking at pictures on the computer it can be very difficult to know the difference. The "indentation" of the pen really only shows up in person under magnification, or if somebody has extremely good vision they can tell the difference easily with the naked eye. But still needs to be done in person to know for sure.

[BrandonG]

I remember seeing the Replica baseballs start selling a couple of years ago on eBay, I questioned the seller as to the ball that they were on and was told that they were replicated baseballs made to look like the originals. I was also told that the "artist" only needed a photograph of a real ball to use as the digital replicated signature. David's ball was obviously the sample ball being used as this is the same signature. And I can also tell you, as I have seen one of these replicas in person, David's was absolutely not made by the same process.

[khkco4bls]

this makes me sick. Now i know why i dont do autos...

[earlywynnfan]

David, it's not like you to be so quiet. Can you tell us how the artist copied your ball? Has it been in your possession for a long time?

Regards,
Ken

[thetruthisoutthere]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I recently received an Ebay email stating that Ebay would no longer allow sellers to list replica coins. Maybe Ebay should consider banning replica signed baseballs also.

[Scott Garner]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I recently received an Ebay email stating that Ebay would no longer allow sellers to list replica coins. Maybe Ebay should consider banning replica signed baseballs also.

eBay should also ban replica tickets. There seems to be a growing trend of sellers listing more and more of these. Everyone mentions that they are replicas, but it's just a matter of time that someone unscrupulous idiot buys and relists it as authentic. There undoubtedly is collector out there that will sadly get duped by the ruse....

I personally do not like replicas, period. Replicas = fake!! :mad:

[Mr. Zipper]

eBay should also ban replica tickets. There seems to be a growing trend of sellers listing more and more of these. Everyone mentions that they are replicas, but it's just a matter of time that someone unscrupulous idiot buys and relists it as authentic. There undoubtedly is collector out there that will sadly get duped by the ruse....

I personally do not like replicas, period. Replicas = fake!! :mad:

To play devil's advocate, replicas can help fans on a budget build a display. But, IMO replicas should be indelibly marked.

It was my understanding that replica coins had to be marked by law... otherwise it is a counterfeit. :confused:

[thecatspajamas]

To play devil's advocate, replicas can help fans on a budget build a display. But, IMO replicas should be indelibly marked.

It was my understanding that replica coins had to be marked by law... otherwise it is a counterfeit. :confused:

I wholeheartedly agree with the marking of replicas as such. There will always be those unscrupulous sellers though who either remove the marking or photograph in such a way that it doesn't show and then conveniently leave out words like "original" from their description. So when they're selling a "Babe Ruth Autograph Baseball," well, technically it is a baseball that displays a Babe Ruth autograph on one panel. The seller's feedback usually won't stand up to too many dupes like that, it happens in all areas of collecting, but if the items are marked as replicas, the marking (or scratched-out remainder thereof) should at least raise the necessary red flags for the buyer.

In David's defense on this Ruth ball issue, as Brandon pointed out previously the counterfeiter replicator only needs a photograph of a real signed ball to go from, which means that all it took was one case of David showing off his ball in a public forum with a nice, large, close-up photo of it, and the counterfeiter artist who produces these has all the ammo he needs.

[Scott Garner]

In David's defense on this Ruth ball issue, as Brandon pointed out previously the counterfeiter replicator only needs a photograph of a real signed ball to go from, which means that all it took was one case of David showing off his ball in a public forum with a nice, large, close-up photo of it, and the counterfeiter artist who produces these has all the ammo he needs.

Like Lance! :p

[thekingofclout]

I've posted my Gehrig signed post card several times over the last few years. Now, can a "replicator and/or forger" then use my autograph to create a single signed sweet-spot on an original c. 1930's slightly toned American League Ball?

54617

[RichardSimon]

King, I think you would have to ask the replicator that question.
Maybe if we stopped showing off our stuff (me too) they would have nothing to replicate :D:D

[baseballart]

Jimmy

One thing that can be done to make it more difficult is to add a watermark

Max

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/93/248016037_00086abdd0_o.jpg

[egbeachley]

David, it's not like you to be so quiet. Can you tell us how the artist copied your ball? Has it been in your possession for a long time?

Regards,
Ken

I think that would be the realization that, at worst, he has the same replica autograph, albeit on a better ball. Or, at best, this ball has lost much of its value with there being 'near exact' duplicates easily available.

[henson1855]

To King , I make my own repo balls, I buy my balls custom stitched in red/black or red/blue, it would take me about 10 minutes to replicate that sample on the sweetspot of a baseball.I do not sell my creations, or even really show them,the photo I posted yesterday in the other thread was the first and only time, they are for the most part just impossible to find balls or non existant combos like Waddell and Plank or McGinnity and Matty.Today, I did a 1920 Indians team ball with Chapman and a Janis Joplin single signed Giles ball, I can use the same process for bats as well,keep in mind as I said, I am not making these for resale it's just a hobbly not looking to ruffle anyone's feathers.

[thekingofclout]

To King , I make my own repo balls, I buy my balls custom stitched in red/black or red/blue, it would take me about 10 minutes to replicate that sample on the sweetspot of a baseball.I do not sell my creations, or even really show them,the photo I posted yesterday in the other thread was the first and only time, they are for the most part just impossible to find balls or non existant combos like Waddell and Plank or McGinnity and Matty.Today, I did a 1920 Indians team ball with Chapman and a Janis Joplin single signed Giles ball, I can use the same process for bats as well,keep in mind as I said, I am not making these for resale it's just a hobbly not looking to ruffle anyone's feathers.

That's amazing Mike. Thanks for being so straightforward. That's a quality that I deeply respect. Best regards, Jimmy

BTW... Those bats make great display pieces.

[thekingofclout]

Jimmy

One thing that can be done to make it more difficult is to add a watermark

Max

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/93/248016037_00086abdd0_o.jpg

"Maybe if we stopped showing off our stuff (me too) they would have nothing to replicate"

Thanks for the input Max and Richard. However, I think my horses all left the barn a long, long time ago. ;)

BTW... That's a tough looking, well seasoned bunch of ballplayers you got there, Max. And I just love the little kid stuck at the end of the row!

[henson1855]

Thank you for the kind words, I bought the bats through Louisville Slugger, they are the dark brown ones with the gold foil branding, I really had to spend some time on them to de-modernize them , but it was a heck of alot cheaper than trying to find vintage store bats that have become so expensive.

[mark evans]

I think that would be the realization that, at worst, he has the same replica autograph, albeit on a better ball. Or, at best, this ball has lost much of its value with there being 'near exact' duplicates easily available.

I don't see how the existence of 'replica' balls would much affect the value of an authentic Ruth ball. The larger problem, especially in today's 'climate,' could be establishing the authenticity of the Ruth ball to the satisfaction of potential buyers.

[yanks12025]

Henson,
I know you cant talk about it to much. But I'm curious how you print a auto on a ball or a bat.

[thecatspajamas]

I don't see how the existence of 'replica' balls would much affect the value of an authentic Ruth ball. The larger problem, especially in today's 'climate,' could be establishing the authenticity of the Ruth ball to the satisfaction of potential buyers.

I think the previous posters were referring specifically to the particular ball used as a template for the replicas. In and of itself, the value isn't diminished. If a collector has seen 100 replica balls that look very much to exactly like the original though, there will be that bit of doubt that makes them wonder if this one really is authentic, or if the replicas have just gotten better than their discerning eyes. Doubt in the mind of the buyer, however minor, will always affect the price they are willing to pay for an item.

As another example, consider autopen signatures. Presidents and other famous individuals have certain known autopen signature patterns. The pattern or template is based on an actual signature, so somewhere (presumably, for the sake of this example) there exists that actual hand-signed autograph that the autopen template was based on. Yet if you offered that original hand-signed autograph to a collector, it would be difficult for him to dispel from his mind all the autopen duplicates of that signature he had seen in order to pull the trigger on the purchase, despite the signature being 100% authentic.

The same thing happens in other areas of collectibles too, where counterfeits of certain items are so prolific that it becomes harder for a buyer to gain the necessary confidence when an authentic example comes up for sale.

[mark evans]

I think we are saying much the same thing. A person who wants and can afford an authentic Ruth ball is not going to find a 'replica' ball very satisfying. However, given the 'sophistication' of the replicas, potential purchasers are likely to insist upon a high standard of proof of authenticity before making the purchase.

[batsballsbases]

Hi David,
I see in the other thread that they used your ball as a reference in the Halls Of Shame . Love to hear your story about that. Al

[David Atkatz]

I wonder. Is the Grabowski signature that appears on my ball a replication, too?

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/datkatz/ruth_grabowski_grab.jpg

None of the fountain pen "structure" appears on the replica balls--the double lines produced by the split nib, the places where one line crosses another, etc. All of this is easily visible on my ball because the pen was relatively dry--it did not have a strong ink flow. There are pen impressions, as well. There is no doubt the ball was signed.

i posted large close-ups of this ball--and other autographs--here years ago. I will NOT be doing so again.

[earlywynnfan]

I wonder. Is the Grabowski signature that appears on my ball a replication, too?

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/datkatz/ruth_grabowski_grab.jpg

None of the fountain pen "structure" appears on the replica balls--the double lines produced by the split nib, the places where one line crosses another, etc. All of this is easily visible on my ball because the pen was relatively dry--it did not have a strong ink flow. There are pen impressions, as well. There is no doubt the ball was signed.

i posted large close-ups of this ball--and other autographs--here years ago. I will NOT be doing so again.

I'm sure no laws were broken here, but if the artist said "Hey, that Atkaz ball has a sweet auto! I'm going to copy it for art balls," I'd at least think it'd be common courtesy to let the owner of the original know!

That's why I brought this back up, not to say that David had another bad ball or anything. I was wondering if he was even aware his ball had been copied.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

[David Atkatz]

I was not aware. But my eyes have been opened, again.
Thanks.

[henson1855]

Most of these repos look like stamped, like generic stadium bought novelty balls. I like realism,and anything can be reproduced,even fountain pen splits. David I AM NOT SAYING your ball isn't authentic, just saying with an eye for detail, and the know how,the sigs can look very good, and chipping,fading,ink slit ect. can also be manually added. Someone that is selling replicas on Ebay for 50.00 won't look that impressive,but I seem to like realism with my collection. Here are a few of mine.

[David Atkatz]

There doesn't appear to be near that level of detail in the replicas which you posted. Under magnification--and even to the naked eye, at times--fountain pen writing is easily distinguishable from facsimile.

Of course, anything can be "copied." But the ball has not been out of my possession for the last ten years; if the replicas are copies of this signature they were made from photos I posted--and the replicas cannot show more detail than is present in those photos. The ball shows structure at all levels of magnification--far more detail than appears at the resolution of the photos.

[David Atkatz]

C'mon, Mike. Surely you're not saying that those blotchy, thick-lined signatures look real.

[henson1855]

All I am saying is don't be so quick to assume what is possible and what isn't . What does thick lined ink have to do with anything? These were taken from documented autographed balls that sold at auction,you commented on the split in the ink, all I did was show you it can be replicated, Here is the thick ink Chance ball real or not ,who knows? But,being splotchy and having a thick lined signature, it sold at auction. http://legendaryauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?lotid=68017

[David Atkatz]

Notice the grain perforations in the leather. Notice where the ink has filled in some of them, producing extremely tine dots.

Did the replicator align the printed signature exactly with the microscopic pattern?

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/datkatz/ruthcu-1.jpg

[henson1855]

Good point. That would be impossible IMO to replicate. I have always thought your ball was an ink signature, it was not replicated using the technique I use. The ball and autographs could be but you are 100% right, under a microscope it would be noticeable.

[Mr. Zipper]

Notice the grain perforations in the leather. Notice where the ink has filled in some of them, producing extremely tine dots.

Did the replicator align the printed signature exactly with the microscopic pattern?

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/datkatz/ruthcu-1.jpg

Could you please post a larger scan? 300 dpi perhaps. :D

:p

[Scott Garner]

C'mon, Mike. Surely you're not saying that those blotchy, thick-lined signatures look real.

Mike,

I mean no disrespect, but I'd have to agree with David on this one. I wouldn't be fooled by either the Big Ed Walsh or Cy Young facsimile balls. Both look pretty clumsy, IMHO.....

[David Atkatz]

Could you please post a larger scan? 300 dpi perhaps. :D

:pSorry. This is the best I have right now.

[henson1855]

No offense taken Scott,it is not my intention to try to fool anyone.

[baseballart]

I'd be very surprised if the various licensing agencies for the estates of the ball players didn't take a dim view of any unauthorized replication